Upholding the denial of Petitioner’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to raise the issue of competency and seek safeguards under Matter of M-A-M- but the IJ sua sponte undertook the steps required by M-A-M- to confirm Petitioner was competent and where counsel failed to rely on Temu v. Holder, 740 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 2014) to raise a mental health asylum claim. The Court also upheld the denial of Petitioner’s motion to reopen based on new evidence, including medical records detailing his cognitive impairments, because the new evidence would not have “establish[ed] a causal nexus between his disability…and the persecution.”
Date of Decision
Unpublished
